If you are are truly interested in being anything but an obstructionist just Google it. You can also ask your doctor. Unlike internet stooges they are a lot more likely to know what they are talking about. As to everyone providing you with "credible citations", your mother doesn't work here anymore. If you're not interested enough in the fate of your species to do some checking, it would not be surprising.

If you are are truly interested in being anything but an obstructionist just Google it. You can also ask your doctor. Unlike internet stooges they are a lot more likely to know what they are talking about. As to everyone providing you with "credible citations", your mother doesn't work here anymore. If you're not interested enough in the fate of your species to do some checking, it would not be surprising.

You are no better at citing sources to back your outrageous claims, than you are paying off wagers.

Sperm counts are falling. This isn’t the reproductive apocalypse — yet.Seven questions about declining sperm counts you were too afraid to ask.

If sperm counts fall at the same rate as they have over the last 40 years, in 40 more years they will be 25% of original. A level too low to maintain population levels. Our species will then being going extinct!see link above

Sperm counts are falling. This isn’t the reproductive apocalypse — yet.Seven questions about declining sperm counts you were too afraid to ask.

If sperm counts fall at the same rate as they have over the last 40 years, in 40 more years they will be 25% of original. A level too low to maintain population levels. Our species will then being going extinct!see link above

Better via that mechanism than the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse.

HALL OF SHAME:-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.

Newfie, I agree with you entirely regarding Farley Mowatt. This gentleman was far ahead of the learning curve. Society failed to listen to his prescient warnings and rightly paid the price. Mowatt tried warning the cod fishing industry that the fishery would collapse unless reasonable limits were enacted. Nobody listened. How could the world's richest fishery that reliably produced millions of tons of catch generation after generation collapse? BAU continued as the technology improved and the fishing trawlers got larger and larger. Then it happened. In the early 1990s, the fishermen went out and returned with NOTHING. Panic ensued along with the blame game. 57.000 US cod fishermen lost their jobs while their ships slowly rusted away. Even to this day, a total commercial moratorium remains in effect with no sign of recovery. The world's richest fishery is functionally extinct.

Ibon, outstanding analogy. Just as passenger pigeons blackened the sky for miles, the cod produced similar sighting reports, thus providing a false sense of security that neither could be harvested to the point of extinction.

We think we know so much, yet our persistent lack of wisdom condemns us to repeat the same horrible mistakes time and again. For this reason, we are a failed species, and it causes me profound sadness to recognize this fact. I have no doubt larger forces are at work or have finished creating our 2.0 version; however, the first order of business is eliminating the failed version before they cause irreparable harm to the host planet.

Every time we have approached PO, the prices nudge up and thousands of unprofitable petroleum sources start producing again. This has been happening since the OPEC oil embargo back in 1973. Oil prices have been low for a while this time.

Remember one other point - once you cross the $10/g threshold, it becomes profitable to make liquid fuels from coal. There is over a century of coal left when that begins. As long as the path from the present $3/g to $10/g is at least 3 years long, it won't be an economy-breaking shock as much as an annoyance.

KaiserJeep wrote: As long as the path from the present $3/g to $10/g is at least 3 years long, it won't be an economy-breaking shock as much as an annoyance.

This kind of idea is the MAIN critical point IMO, that the fast crashers can't, or refuse -- to get into their heads. Annoyance is NOT doom. Inconvenience is NOT doom. Having less money for extras is NOT doom.

Now, add to that the fact that people and organizations can and do adapt, and technology does improve things like energy efficiency by a LOT over time, and most of the "economic collapse" and "running out of X collapse" scenarios just go away -- in anything approaching the "fast" time frame.

...

Now, could a giant meteor hit the earth by 2025? Sure. But good luck getting a good return betting on events like that.

By the way, it looks like the US national average gasoline price is below $2.50, and I only see 9 states where the range even includes $3.00. The typical remote or high tax states. So despite screams of the ETPers, etc., even a doubling of the oil price (very quickly) wouldn't be more than an annoyance for the VAST majority of people in the US.

Looking at Alaska, it looks like gas prices are quoted at below $3 currently.

When I watch shows like "Life Below Zero", about life in the Alaskan boonies, I'm 99+% sure the claim is frequently that gasoline costs in the range of $10 or so.

Is that because it costs that much to transport it from a major city (where I presume the quotes for AAA tend to come from) to the boonies, even if most of the distance is covered by small planes? I would think that trucks could get reasonably close in most cases if the weather isn't too bad. Then small planes could do the rest.

So the last leg to someone's home might be by snowmobile or dogsled, but where they'd buy the bulk of their fuel would be in or near a small town -- so I'm not getting the huge differential. (I would understand big spikes during very bad storms, but not a "normal" price with a $7ish premium).

I'll stipulate up front that I'm well aware I must be missing something obvious. Just wondered if this is more of a "tall tale" to increase the sense of drama, or such prices are for real in AK.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

Pulling up at a pump in Alaska in Fairbanks is quite a lot different than having a barrel of fuel hauled up by a bush pilot. I think that is the differential you are seeing on the show. There are places in Alaska where people live that you can't drive to.

Cog wrote:Pulling up at a pump in Alaska in Fairbanks is quite a lot different than having a barrel of fuel hauled up by a bush pilot. I think that is the differential you are seeing on the show. There are places in Alaska where people live that you can't drive to.

True, and that's probably it.

OTOH, they show, for example, a guy who lives about 20 miles from the town of Eagle (and has a backup house in Eagle, which seems prudent). Now, it looks to me like a normal small town (given the location), and the Mapquest map I just looked at seems to show it connected to other places via roads. So to me, that would imply the ability to drive a fuel tanker into there. (But maybe all such towns don't have gas stations, given the population is around 100 or so. If the nearest gas is an hour away, even by road -- that makes a difference.)

So that's why I asked. For another guy living 60 miles from the nearest road who has to hike in 3 days and at best might be able to get a small pontoon plane to land in a nearby lake -- I certainly get why HIS gasoline would cost $10, or even more. The guy getting his supplies from Eagle -- not so much, given the roads (I WOULD THINK).

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

You see the road in summer warm conditions. What’s it like in January with 6’ of snow, if that’s what they get? I know places the NE Quebec coast where they only get one ferry a week, two stops, one on the way up, one on the way back. If you are in the middle it’s pretty well spread out, if on the then end you may have 5 days between deliveries. In winter the ferry may not be able to make a trip for a few weeks.

Some of the towns have no roads, none of the roads go far or connect to the outside world. Heat is primarially by wood, but that requires a boat or snowmobile to collect. No idea of fuel price there, just describing conditions I’ve seen.

Newfie wrote:Some of the towns have no roads, none of the roads go far or connect to the outside world.

I don't get this part. What would be the point in having roads if NONE of the roads connect to the outside world? You airlift in a car, and only use it to drive around town? In an area where snowmobiles are common, as are dog teams?

I'll certainly agree (as I had stated upthread) that one can imagine bad winter weather causing inability to get fuel and spiking the price.

I was looking at the town of Eagle on a map by Mapquest (where one of the guys on the show citing the high prices lived near - thus my interest in that town). Population about 100, normal looking town. It clearly showed a road along the river, extending well outside both sides of the town. I just checked on Google Maps, and highway 5 from Eagle clearly connects to Taylor Highway, which clearly leads to the outside world. That highway is clearly not a very good road, but it does take you to a "real" road.

So I can certainly believe many tiny Alaskan "towns" are remote enough that they don't even have paved roads or decent roads for normal vehicles. Not so much that the ones with an established network of paved roads leave you unable to get to the outside world at all (weather permitting, of course).

But, I'll agree that the minor roads in Alaska might well be impassable for long periods of time in the winter -- so that might well explain why even in remote towns with "real roads", the cost of things from the outside world, including fuel, is horrendous.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

Newfie wrote:Some of the towns have no roads, none of the roads go far or connect to the outside world.

I don't get this part. What would be the point in having roads if NONE of the roads connect to the outside world? You airlift in a car, and only use it to drive around town? In an area where snowmobiles are common, as are dog teams? ......

Some of those towns are served by a sea port or barge traffic on the Yukon river. They are surrounded by mountain ranges and barren land wilderness. The roads in town serve to get you and your stuff from the dock to you house or cabin. The ones leading out of town stop at the last cabin. It is a matter of distance and expense. You can't justify a long road over difficult terrain that will only have a dozen cars or trucks on it a week.

I was talking about the Cote Nord of Quebec, but yes, same thing. Most every town in Greenland has some road and some cars. NONE of the towns are connected by road. Town to town travel is by boat or air.

You don’t airlift in a car, except in VERY extreme circumstances, by ferry.